On the surface it probably seems unusual that a movie that opens with a young man attempting to fellate his own member and ends with an orgy should fall squarely into the tradition of romantic comedy. But is it really so strange? Why can't sex be charming, funny, sweet and sentimental, in addition to being rauncy, dangerous and dark? In art, it almost never is. Which is why I felt such a sighing sense of warm relief watching John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus, which is every bit as explicit as Behind the Green Door, but falls more in the tradition of Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot and Jennifer Aniston's latest vehicle.
I've been thinking about sex and sexual imagery and art a lot lately anyway. My son just started high school, which is the time when one begins to move beyond birds and bees and into exploring the actual culture of sexuality--and when I look around, by and large, I don't like what I see. I cut my vaginal teeth on Jean Genet, Jane Bowles and other sinister stuff. I think my initial expectations of sexuality were that it would be loving and recreational, but I was quickly disabused of any such notions by a culture that treats sex as relentlessly dirty, and oftentimes tragic.
Both of which it is, or can be. But it's also more than that. Our strict ideas of what is "hardcore" has to do with hardness as in tumescence, but also hardness as in emotional impenetrability. But sex is about penetration, permeability, fluidity, both physically and emotionally. And I don't think we'll really ever be a healthy culture until our art reflects that. Which is why I think Shortbus, in addition to being a lot of warm, fuzzy fun, is also important.
Manohla Dargis's New York Times review is spot on, even when she compares the movie to Oklahoma!